Thus said Levi Pearson on Fri, 27 Jun 2008 23:34:15 MDT:
> Even atheists can give rational justification for inalienable rights,
> which exist due to rational codes of ethics.
Of course they can, natural laws certainly do exist. So would you argue
that the non-agression principle is not rational and not a natural law?
And for those not familiar with it:
``that no man or group of men may aggress against the person or property
of anyone else.''
Where aggression is defined as:
``the initiation of the use or threat of physical violence against the
person or property of anyone else.''
Or in other words:
``No action should be considered illicit or illegal unless it invades,
or aggresses against, the person or just property of another. Only
invasive actions should be declared illegal, and combated with the full
power of the law.''
> "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from
> the consent of the governed"
>> This suggests to me that the government may justly develop powers
> beyond the basic protection of natural rights through democratic
> means.
This does not say that government can invent new rights that people
don't have to begin with. Government can only be empowered by the rights
that previously existed in the people. Anything else is usurpation of
power.
> Our government has, by now, been long established itself. Not that I'm
> accusing you and Von of being on the cusp of revolution, but you do
> propose fairly radical change.
I'm sorry, but if returning to a constitutionally sized government is
radical, then yes, call me radical! If hoping that we can keep our
liberties in tact is radical, then yes, call me radical. Is radical
supposed to be a disparaging term? What exactly does radical mean
anyway?
Andy
--
[-----------[system uptime]--------------------------------------------]
2:30pm up 20 min, 1 user, load average: 1.08, 1.16, 0.92